PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10692 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10692 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10692 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10692 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-01 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill proposes restoring access to premium tax credits—tax help with health insurance premiums—for certain people lawfully present in the United States. It would restore a credit eligibility rule for people with income at or below the poverty line who cannot receive Medicaid because of their immigration status. It would also let states raise the maximum household income for Basic Health Program eligibility. These are proposed changes, not evidence of enacted law.
Restoration of allowance of premium tax credit for lawfully present individuals
If— (i) a taxpayer has a household income which is not greater than 100 percent of an amount equal to the poverty line for a family of the size involved, and (ii) the taxpayer is an alien lawfully present in the United States, but is not eligible for the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act by reason of such alien status, the taxpayer shall, for purposes of the credit under this section, be treated as an applicable taxpayer with a household income which is equal to 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved.
State option to increase maximum household income for basic health program eligibility
2026-10-01: Introduced in House
Section 2 would repeal section 71301 of Public Law 119–21 and restore every provision it amended to the wording it would have had without that section. Those changes would take effect as though included in the corresponding provisions of Public Law 119–21. The supplied text does not reproduce the provisions being restored.
Section 71301 of Public Law 119–21 is repealed, and each provision of law amended by such section is amended to read as such provision would read if such section had never been enacted.
Each amendment made by this section shall take effect as if included in the provision of Public Law 119–21 to which such amendment relates.
Section 3 would restore a special premium tax credit rule for lawfully present noncitizen taxpayers whose household income is at or below the poverty line for their family size and who are ineligible for Medicaid because of their immigration status. For purposes of that credit, they would be treated as eligible taxpayers with income equal to 100 percent of the poverty line. This would not itself grant Medicaid eligibility.
Section 36B(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 71302 of Public Law 119–21, is amended by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph
If— (i) a taxpayer has a household income which is not greater than 100 percent of an amount equal to the poverty line for a family of the size involved, and (ii) the taxpayer is an alien lawfully present in the United States, but is not eligible for the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act by reason of such alien status, the taxpayer shall, for purposes of the credit under this section, be treated as an applicable taxpayer with a household income which is equal to 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved.
The restored credit rule in section 3 would apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Section 4 would let each state choose a maximum household income threshold for Basic Health Program eligibility between 200 and 250 percent, replacing the existing 200 percent figure. Raising the threshold would be optional. The underlying statutory language specifying what those percentages measure is not reproduced.
State option to increase maximum household income for basic health program eligibility
Section 1331(e)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18051(e)(1)(B)) is amended by striking 200 percent and inserting a percentage to be determined by the State that is not less than 200 percent and not more than 250 percent.
The state income-threshold option would apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2027.
The amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2027.
The supplied action snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House on October 1, 2026, and referral that day to the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees for consideration of provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T18:01:46Z.
2026-10-01: Introduced in House
2026-10-01: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-01. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish formal earmark status in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No narrow preferential benefit beyond the main policy's intended eligibility groups was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Ordinary program eligibility does not alone warrant a finding. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI